Skip to main content

Reserve Bank of India tightens norms for errant borrowers

Even as bankers struggle to recover dues from errant borrowers, grappling with an inefficient legal system, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Monday put out a set of revised guidelines on how lenders should deal with ‘non-cooperative’ borrowers.

The modified definition of non-cooperative borrower, it would appear, is a lot similar to that of a ‘wilful defaulter’.The RBI has characterised a non-cooperative borrower as one “who does not engage constructively with his lender by defaulting in timely repayment of dues while having ability to pay, thwarting lenders’ efforts for recovery of their dues by not providing necessary information sought, denying access to assets financed and collateral securities, obstructing sale of securities”.

“In effect, a non-cooperative is a defaulter who deliberately stonewalls the efforts of lenders to recover their dues,” the central bank said on Monday, asking lenders to put in place a transparent mechanism for classifying borrowers as such.



The threshold exposure, per bank, for declaring a company as non-cooperative has been set at Rs 5 crore.

The central bank continues to allow lenders to take on fresh exposure to non-cooperative borrowers but at the cost of making higher provisions. Higher provisions are also required to be made against fresh loans given to even those companies managed by the any directors of the non-cooperative borrowing company.

“However, for the purpose of asset classification and income recognition, the new loans would be treated as standard assets,” the RBI said. The central bank bars lenders from taking on fresh exposure to wilful defaulters, bankers point out.

Earlier, in September, governor Raghuram Rajan had observed that non-cooperative borrowers were those that resisted repaying at every corner, holding up the process. “From a prudential perspective, they impose a cost to the system because banks cannot get their money using the existing laws such as Sarfaesi,” Rajan said.

Rajan has pointed out that the amounts “banks recover from defaulted debt is both meagre and long-delayed”. In FY14, Rs 30,590 crore was recovered via debt recovery tribunals while the outstanding value of debt sought to be recovered was Rs 2.36 lakh crore. Worse, Rajan added that while the law stipulates that cases before the DRT have to be disposed of in six months, only a fourth of cases meet this criteria, “suggesting a four-year wait even if the tribunals focus only on old cases”. According to RBI data, loans worth more than Rs 2 lakh crore were pending at 33 DRTs till FY14, up from Rs 1.43 lakh crore in FY13.

K Subramanyam, executive director at Union Bank of India, pointed out that the non-cooperative borrower would be like a precursor to a wilful defaulter tag.

“The wilful defaulter provision would be simultaneously used as these are two different types of borrowers,” Subramanyam explained.

By imposing the higher provisions, the central banks is discouraging banks from taking on additional exposure to errant borrowers, analysts said. Bankers have pointed out that the some borrowers delay the legal proceedings by continuously appealing for stays in the tribunals.

Banker’s efforts to recover dues from errant borrowers have been stymied by the courts. In September, the Gujarat High court had deemed the RBI’s wilful default guidelines as “unconstitutional” and had asked the RBI to modify the same. The court said the circular was in violation of the RBI Act or the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. “The circular that confers uncanalised, unbridled and untrammelled power upon the banks to decide the future of any borrower and makes the bank a judge in its own cause and also the decision whether the other banks should lend money to the borrower declared as a wilful defaulter,” the court had said in its judgement. Following the court order, Rajan said that the central bank would alter the definition of a wilful defaulter to accommodate the concerns of the court.

Article referred: http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/reserve-bank-of-india-tightens-norms-for-errant-borrowers/22198/

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even